Johan Potgieter said:
I know that this is a logical way of seeing things as far as writters are concerned and there are cases that are exactly as you describe them.I don't think however that all are like you describe in your post,therefore I cannot face all or anyone with the same degree of suspiciousness.I might sometimes read-usually I don't since I don't buy magazines-their views,but never use their views as a criterion of any possible purchase,or take their words as gospel. You see,when it comes to reviewers,I am, as to many other things,a real sceptic.
anatech said:
.... so are many of us, who seem to unwittingly get locked in this kind of circular argument. As soon as the last comment can be seemlessly spliced back into the origin of said argument, no one can get out, and very little if any useful addition is made to technology.
It is a shlepp to go and fish out past posts to someone as lazy as myself. (It is said that lazy people make good engineers. Then I was a very good engineer.) Regarding the 12AT7 argument and allegations of favourism=recommendation, may I emphasise what was said earlier and perhaps conveniently not taken further:
Any 'sound' of a tube will depend on its (electrical) characteristics. If these do not correspond closely to what is published by authentic brands, that tube is no longer a genuine representative of said number. Many of us have detected meaningful differences with the same 'number', especially since original factories have closed down and any manner of glass contents are stamped with any manner of logo.
One can say this to solve the problem of 'seeing what is tested'. Most of the 'alleged' differences can be deduced from the right characteristics (graphs), irrespective of make. Ergo, tube differs moderately from published graphs, tube is not what number says, irrespective of hieroglyphics stamped on glass.
With respect to SY, I might wonder whether whether the 12AT7 from JJ might not have had some superiority over the general type - judged from photos showed by Wavebourn. Was that worthy of all the nit-picking afterwards....? For heaven's sake, it was apparent what SY meant. This is a D.I.Y. site; there is no need to expect the finesse of a doctoral thesis from every post, even if some of us are capable of it. Let us be able to breathe within these 'walls'. We sadly do not all have instruments from Tektronix, HP, Marconi, Rhode & Schwartz, et al on our shelves.
As said in the beginning by Anatech
Panicos,
Agreed - and many who know are like you. Scepticism is very safe in audio, sorry to say (I might condemn myself there!). But I replied in the vein of SY's earlier post. And since many do not know the difference between reportes and reporters. ..., but not to push this, as I said in my above post!
Agreed - and many who know are like you. Scepticism is very safe in audio, sorry to say (I might condemn myself there!). But I replied in the vein of SY's earlier post. And since many do not know the difference between reportes and reporters. ..., but not to push this, as I said in my above post!
I've read in a magazine that a kevlar insulation over a teflon one,has excellent electron control on curves.
Johan,I absolutely agree that scepticism is very safe in audio.However,too much scepticism is in fact,well.......a bit too much.One must allow himself at least the possibility of making a mistake.The possibility of a car accident must not keep us locked in the house
Johan,I absolutely agree that scepticism is very safe in audio.However,too much scepticism is in fact,well.......a bit too much.One must allow himself at least the possibility of making a mistake.The possibility of a car accident must not keep us locked in the house
I really had nothing to do with mach1's badgering of SY about the 12AT7 shootout. Most of the other stuff you've cited was either a philosophical disagreement or a few rhetorical questions.
I would hate to have to resort to training my ears to agree with measurements made on supposedly low distortion equipment. It's entirely possible, but it would make attending live classical performances difficult. I would look foolish debating Siegfried Linkwitz on the merits of distortion measurement and playback accuracy regarding the system he showed at RMAF, but I'll have to say that it was one of the most unnatural and distorted sounding systems I've ever run across. It's happened before when an engineer displays a "superb measuring" system with a look of complete satisfaction on his face and no one else can think of a kind way to tell him he's wasting his time. Those guys have any number of excuses as to why their stuff doesn't sell, the main one being the stupidity of audiophiles. And it really doesn't have to be that way!
John
jlsem said:
It is exactly the case when a scientist or an engineer is totally concentrated on some parameters neglecting other parameters. When during BAF I said that Zinkwitz's speakers sound nice meaning flat frequency response through the crossover region, SY said, "No", because of phase modulation. Both were right.
Panicos K said:
As I know Teflon has 0.04 friction coefficient. What about Kelvar?
jlsem said:
By now you would have realised that I am an EE, using mainly measurements to arrive at (hopefully!) successful designs.
Then think of the frustration I must have had when I had to suffer the same kind of person!
Thus, I totally agree with your post (not quoting the lot). Hopefully you have noticed that I do not use the term 'stupidity' of listeners/audiophiles/novices/whoever. Yes, some are - er - well, a little arrogant airing their concepts ... which place them in the same category as the group you mentioned.
I cannot resist giving an applicable quotation here (not aimed at anybody here): "Be decently humble. People who think they are smart, are particularly boring to those who are." I am sure you will agree!
Wavebourn said:
Precisely! The right parameters - and all of them (not just thd etc.)
Johan,
My posts actually had far more to do with the narrow range of performance parameters assumed by someone as being adequate to determine the absolute superiority of one component variant over others, and the subsequent inadequacy of measurements to satisfy normal accepted scientific criteria of proof, even assuming that those parameters were adequate.
Whether the discussion was about tubes, cables or capacitors is largely irrelevant. My focus was on methodological shortcomings and how easy it is to overlook them. Quite relevant to a thread all about competing hypotheses and the the derivation of methodologies suitable for the exploration of their veracity through experimentation I would have thought.
mach1 said:
The way I see it is that the really knowledgeable fully qualified engineer will - unless he has a strong inspiration or gut feeling to do otherwise - take every known parameter of each aspect/component into account when designing a piece of equipment. The 'creative' designer may be no more than a guy with very elementary knowledge who manages by 'happenstance' to concentrate on exactly those qualities which actually matter in producing 'good sound' rather than those which, perhaps, should matter - but actually have little positive influence in the end result.
The Fact is that we need both sorts of designers in the audio design field.
The Problem is that neither camp can accept the other. Creatives are - in all fields - renowned as exhibiting a driving fire in their belly whereas the 'expert' is known for relying on empirical argument and gradually wearing down any opposition to his stance. You simply cannot argue with a creative; the fully knowledgeable expert's greatest weakness is that he too often ignores the fact that his knowledge is transitory whereas it is in fact growing by the minute, and is likely to continue so to do. They can co-exist, but not without the sort of flare-ups which we have witnessed in these threads.
Mach1 may well be right but from other viewpoints he may be totally wrong and this applies to all who hold tightly defined views. Their conclusions may well be totally accurate within their own framework of knowledge/experience - but NOT within other areas. The position of the observer/measurer has been known for decades now to have its influence.
There are a gifted few who have the creative urge/drive and the fullest knowledge held together by a happy knack of getting it right.
Reading posts #591 & 592,with which not many will dissagree,they create a few logical queries.Audiophiles,music fans even "audiophools"since it is a likable word,will always exist.These,make their choices when it comes to audio in general,not just cables etc.......and they will continue to do so.The engineering side's thesis is also known,as well as the diy's.Ok,the non qualified cannot do otherwise, but to buy the equipment of his choice.Does this help the engineering side in any way?Is the engineering side content by exposing the ignorance of the "audiophile"?I don't think so,and I don't think that the "audiophiles"care either.Which brings me to the questions and my queries.Can these gifted engineers-no sarcasm honestly-take advantage of their gift in order to offer something,first to themselves and then to the consumer?Can for example Wavebourn offer his creations-again no sarcasm-to the ignorant who can only buy his equipment?If yes,will he be able to remain Wavebourn as we know him,or he will end-up as just another piece of the establishment of the audio world?Can he retain his competitive pricing and quality even if success comes and he has to have 20-30 workers in order to be able to build 5000 amplifiers?Can he attack the establishment with his creations instead of the "ignorant"?
Panicos K said:
Why should I attack somebody?
I'm working on preparation to offer to right people solutions they need. Kits for amateur audio enthusiasts, amps, speakers, effect pedals, microphones, consoles, etc... to professional and amateur musicians and singers, for studio owners. Amps and speakers for audiophiles. Articles for engineers.
Pfew!
... and all this following a remark about the accuracy of (measurement of) a lowly 12AT7
I am saved by the delimitation of the rink (instead of the more usually quoted 'bell'!) from arguing the very interesting matter of interplay of creativity and engineering (seen in its limited context as used in the above posts). (I happen to have participated on both sides!)
Thus, getting back to the original subject of this deviation from subject viz. the 12AT7 - or any other tube/component for that matter). Measurements in that context really provide little scope for creativity. In simple terms, a particular tube should exhibit the published characteristics closely or it is not that tube, a 150 ohm resistor should be that to say within 10%, otherwise a 130 ohm or 170 ohm should be used, etc. That has nothing to do with creativity; it does not exclude it. Similarly, in distortionless (audible, that is) amplifier design, there is no real scope for creativity - it is simply a design exercise, full stop. But creativity has its place in the appearance.
All this, if I have read the meaning of above posts correctly. If so, I agree with all said in an 'umbrella'-sense, but ...... I would not list 'tightly defined views' as a rather limiting 'shortcoming' view compared to the rest and alternating to it (if I interpret correctly). Example: There is generous scope for creativity in the design of a large building - but it might collapse in the end if certain 'tightly defined' characteristics of building materials were not observed to begin with.
Not to push this - what was the thread subject again??
... and all this following a remark about the accuracy of (measurement of) a lowly 12AT7
brianco said:
I am saved by the delimitation of the rink (instead of the more usually quoted 'bell'!) from arguing the very interesting matter of interplay of creativity and engineering (seen in its limited context as used in the above posts). (I happen to have participated on both sides!)
Thus, getting back to the original subject of this deviation from subject viz. the 12AT7 - or any other tube/component for that matter). Measurements in that context really provide little scope for creativity. In simple terms, a particular tube should exhibit the published characteristics closely or it is not that tube, a 150 ohm resistor should be that to say within 10%, otherwise a 130 ohm or 170 ohm should be used, etc. That has nothing to do with creativity; it does not exclude it. Similarly, in distortionless (audible, that is) amplifier design, there is no real scope for creativity - it is simply a design exercise, full stop. But creativity has its place in the appearance.
All this, if I have read the meaning of above posts correctly. If so, I agree with all said in an 'umbrella'-sense, but ...... I would not list 'tightly defined views' as a rather limiting 'shortcoming' view compared to the rest and alternating to it (if I interpret correctly). Example: There is generous scope for creativity in the design of a large building - but it might collapse in the end if certain 'tightly defined' characteristics of building materials were not observed to begin with.
Not to push this - what was the thread subject again??
infinia said:
You mean for the audiophiles.
Engineers just want schematics, parts lists, and photos yea inside close up photo' it's porn for nerds.
Engineers need a different language for proper suggestions than audiophiles do. This is the difference. I can write for both, but would prefer to write for engineers, since I am an engineer as well and know the language needed for persuasion. One of my friends returning from Japan where he used to be a representative of one major computer company, said, "Anatoliy, even if you know some Japanese words don't use them, because depending on intonation the same words may sound as a compliment, or be very offensive". So, I'm not going to write for audiophiles. One High End store owner started spitting on me as soon as heard that I am an engineer.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.